The rainrinnsdown through Merriland town;So doth it down the Pa.—Old Ballad.
The rainrinnsdown through Merriland town;So doth it down the Pa.—Old Ballad.
The rainrinnsdown through Merriland town;
So doth it down the Pa.—Old Ballad.
The Anglo-Saxon form isyrnan; in the præteritearn,urnon. A transposition has since taken place. The wordrunseems to have been originally no present, but a præterite form.
6. Thatburstis only an apparent exception. Beforer,ĕ,ĭ,ŭ, are pronounced alike. We draw no distinction between the vowels inpert,flirt,hurt. The Anglo-Saxon forms are,berste,byrst,bærse,burston,borsten.
Thirteenth Class.
§ 376. Contains the single wordchoose, in the præteritechose; in Anglo-Saxon,ceóse,ceás.
THE WEAK TENSES.
§ 377. The præterite tense of the weak verbs is formed by the addition of-dor-t. If necessary, the syllable-edis substituted for-d.
The current statement that the syllable-ed, rather than the letter-d, is the sign of the præterite tense, is true only in regard to the written language. Instabbed,moved,bragged,whizzed,judged,filled,slurred,slammed,shunned,barred,strewed, theeis a point of spelling only. Inlanguage, except in declamation, there is no second vowel sound. The-dcomes in immediate contact with the final letter of the original word, and the number of syllables remains the same as it was before.
When, however, the original word ends in-dor-t, asslightorbrand, then, and then only (and that not always), is there the addition of the syllable-ed; as inslighted,branded. This is necessary, since the combinationsslighttandbranddare unpronounceable.
Whether the addition be-dor-tdepends upon the flatness or sharpness of the preceding letter.
Afterb,v,th(as inclothe),g, orz, the addition is-d. This is a matter of necessity. We saystabd,môvd,clôthd,braggd,whizzd, becausestabt,môvt,clotht,braggt,whizzt, are unpronounceable.
Afterl,m,n,r,w,y, or a vowel, the addition is also-d. This is the habit of the English language.Filt,slurt,strayt, &c., are as pronounceable asfilld,slurrd,strayd, &c. It is the habit, however, of the English language to prefer the latter forms. All this, as the reader has probably observed, is merely the reasoning concerning thes, in words likefather's, &c., applied to another letter and to another part of speech.
For some historical notices respecting the use of-d,-t, and-ed, in the spelling of the English præterites and participles, the reader is referred to the Cambridge Philological Museum, vol. i. p. 655.
§ 378. The verbs of the weak conjugation fall into three classes. In the first there is the simple addition of-d,-t, or-ed.
To this class belong the greater part of the weak verbs and all verbs of foreign origin.
§ 379. In the second class, besides the addition of-tor-d, the vowel isshortened. It also contains those words which end in-dor-t, and at the same time have a short vowel in the præterite. Such, amongst others, arecut,cost, &c., where the two tenses are alike, andbend,rend, &c., where the præterite is formed from the present by changing-dinto-t, asbent,rent, &c.
In the following list, the words ending in-pare remarkable; since, in Anglo-Saxon, each of them had, instead of a weak, a strong præterite.
In this class we sometimes find-twhere the-dis expected; the forms beingleftanddealt, instead ofleavedanddealed.
§ 380. Third class.—In the second class the vowel of the present tense wasshortenedin the præterite. In the third class it ischanged.
To this class belong the remarkable præterites of the verbsseek,beseech,catch,teach,bring,think, andbuy,viz.,sought,besought,caught,taught,brought,thought, andbought. In all these, the final consonant is eithergork, or else a sound allied to those mutes. When the tendency of these sounds to becomehandy, as well as to undergo farther changes, is remembered, the forms in point cease to seem anomalous. Inwrought, fromwork, there is a transposition. Inlaidandsaidthe present forms make a show of regularity which they have not. The true original forms should belegdeandsægde, the infinitives beinglecgan,secgan. In these words theirepresents the semivowely, into which the originalgwas changed. The Anglo-Saxon forms of the other words are as follows:—
§ 381. Out of the three classes into which the weak verbs in Anglo-Saxon are divided, only one takes a vowel before thedort. The other two add the syllables-te, or-de, to the last letter of the original word. The vowel that, in one out of the three Anglo-Saxon classes, precedesdiso. Thus we havelufian,lufode;clypian,clypode. In the other two classes the forms are respectivelybærnan,bærnde; andtellan,tealde, no vowel being found. The participle, however, as stated above, ended, not in-deor-te, but in-dor-t; and in two out of the three classes it was preceded by a vowel,gelufod,bærned,geteald. Now in those conjugations where no vowel preceded thedof the præterite, and where the original word ended in-dor-t, a difficulty, which has already been indicated, arose. To add the sign of the præterite to a word likeeard-ian(to dwell) was an easy matter, inasmuch aseardianwas a word belonging to the first class, and in the first class the præterite was formed in-ode. Here the vowelokept the two d's from coming in contact. With words, however, likemétanandsendan, this was not the case. Here no vowel intervened; so that the natural præterite forms weremet-te,send-de, combinations wherein one of the letters ran every chance of being dropped in the pronunciation. Hence, with the exception of the verbs in the first class, words ending in-dor-tin the root admitted no additionaldortin the præterite. This difficulty, existing in the present English as it existed in the Anglo-Saxon, modifies the præterites of most words ending in-tor-d.
In several words there is the actual addition of the syllable-ed; in other wordsdis separated from the last letter of the original word by the addition of a vowel; asended,instructed, &c. Of thisetwo views may be taken.
1. It may be derived from the originaloin-ode, the termination of the first class in Anglo-Saxon. This is the opinion which we form when the word in question is known to have belonged to the Anglo-Saxon language, and, in it, to the first class.Ended,planted,warded,hated,heeded, are (amongst others) words of this sort; their Anglo-Saxon forms beingendode,plantode,weardode,hatode, andeahtode, fromendian,plantian,weardian,hatian, andeahtian.
2. The form may be looked upon, not as that of the præterite, but as that of the participle in a transferred sense. This is the view when we have two forms, one with the vowel, and the other without it, asbendedandbent,wendedandwent,plightedandplight.
A. In several words the final-dis changed into-t, asbend,bent;rend,rent;send,sent;gild,gilt;build,built;spend,spent, &c.
B. In several words the vowel of the root is changed; asfeed,fed;bleed,bled;breed,bred;meet,met;speed,sped;rēad,rĕad, &c. Words of this last-named class cause occasional difficulty to the grammarian. No addition is made to the root, and, in this circumstance, they agree with the strong verbs. Moreover, there is a change of the vowel.In this circumstance also they agree with the strong verbs. Hence with forms likefedandledwe are in doubt as to the conjugation. This doubt we have three means of settling, as may be shown by the wordbeat.
a.By the form of the participle.—The-eninbeatenshows that the wordbeatis strong.
b.By the nature of the vowel.—The weak form ofto beatwould bebet, orbeăt, after the analogy offeedandrēad. By some persons the word is pronouncedbet, and with those who do so the word is weak.
c.By a knowledge of the older forms.—The Anglo-Saxon form isbeáte,beot. There is no such a weak form asbeáte,bætte. The præterite ofsendanissende, weak. There is in Anglo-Saxon no such form assand, strong.
In all this we see a series of expedients for separating the præterite form from the present, when the root ends with the same sound with which the affix begins.
The addition of the vowel takes place only in verbs of the first class.
The change from a long vowel to a short one, as infeed,fed, &c., can only take place where there is a long vowel to be changed.
Where the vowels are short, and, at the same time, the word ends in-d, the-dof the present may become-tin the præterite. Such is the case withbend,bent.
When there is no long vowel to shorten, and no-dto change into-t, the two tenses, of necessity, remain alike; such is the case withcut,cost, &c.
Words likeplanted,heeded, &c., belong to the first class. Words likefeed,lead, to the second class.Bendandcutbelong also to the second class; they belong to it, however, by what may be termed an etymological fiction. The vowel would be changed if it could.
§ 382.Made, had.—In these words there is nothing remarkable but the ejection of a consonant. The Anglo-Saxon forms aremacodeandhæfde, respectively. The words, however, in regard to the amount of change, are not upon a par. Thefinhæfdewas probably sounded asv. Nowvis a letter excessively liable to be ejected, whichkis not.K, before it is ejected, is generally changed into eithergory.
Would, should, could.—It must not be imagined thatcouldis in the same predicament with these words. Inwillandshallthe-lis part of the original word. This is not the case withcan. For the formcould, see the Chapter upon Irregularity.
Aught.—In Anglo-Saxonáhte, the præterite of the present formáh, pluralágan.—As late as the time of Elizabeth we findoweused forown. The present formownseems to have arisen from the pluralágen.Aughtis the præterite of the Anglo-Saxonáh;owedof the Englishowe=debeo;ownedof the Englishown=possideo. The wordown, in the expressionto own to a thing, has a totally different origin. It comes from the Anglo-Saxonan(plural,unnon)=I give, orgrant=concedo.
Durst.—The verbdareis both transitive and intransitive. We can say eitherI dare do such a thing, orI dare(challenge)such a man to do it. This, in the present tense, is unequivocally correct. In the past the double power of the worddareis ambiguous; still it is, to my mind at least, allowable. We can certainly sayI dared him to accept my challenge; and we can, perhaps, sayI dared venture on the expedition. In this last sentence, however,durstis the preferable expression.
Now, althoughdareis both transitive and intransitive,durstis only intransitive. It never agrees with the Latin wordprovoco; only with the Latin wordaudeo. Moreover, the worddursthas both a present and a past sense. The difficulty which it presents consists in the presence of the-st, letters characteristic of the second person singular, but here found in all the persons alike; asI durst,they durst, &c.
The Mœso-Gothic forms aredar,dart?dar,daúrum,daúruþ,daúrun, for the persons of the present tense; anddaúrsta,daúrstês,daúrsta, &c., for those of the præterite. The same is the case throughout the Germanic languages. No-s, however, appears in the Scandinavian; the præterites beingþorðiandtörde, Icelandic and Danish. The Anglo-Saxon isdear=I dare,dearst=thou darest,durron=we,ye, orthey dare; subjunctive,durre,dorste,dorston. Old Saxon, present,dar; præteritedursta. The Mœso-Gothic tense,daúrsta, instead ofdaúrda, shows the antiquity of this form in-s.
The readiest mode of accounting for the form in question is to suppose that the second singular has been extended over all the other persons. This view, however, is traversed by the absence of the-sin the Mœso-Gothic present. The form there (real or presumed) is notdarst, butdart. Of this latter form, however, it must be remarked that its existence is hypothetical.
In Matthew xxvi. 67, of the Mœso-Gothic Gospel of Ulphilas, is found the formkaúpastêdun, instead ofkaúpatidédun, the præterite plural ofkaúpatjan=to beat. Here there is a similar insertion of the-s.—Deutsche Grammatik, i. 848, 852, 853.
The-sindursthas still to be satisfactorily accounted for.
Must.—A form common to all persons, numbers, and tenses. That neither the-snor the-tare part of the original root, is indicated by the Scandinavian formmaae(Danish), pronouncedmoh; præteritemaatte.
The readiest mode of accounting for the-sinmust, is to presume that it belongs to the second singular, extended to the other persons,mo-est=must. Irrespective, however, of other objections, this view is traversed by the formsmôtan, Mœso-Gothic (an infinitive), andmót, Mœso-Gothic, Old Saxon, and Anglo-Saxon (a first person present). These neutralise the evidence given by the Danish formmaae, and indicate that the-tis truly a part of the original root.
Now, the-tbeing considered as part of the root, the-scannot be derived from the second singular; inasmuch as it precedes, instead of following the-t.
At one time, for want of a better theory, I conceived, that in the word in point (and also indurstand a few others), we had traces of the Scandinavian passive. This notion I have, for evident reasons, abandoned.
In p.298it was stated that the Mœso-Gothic termination of the second singular of the strong præterites was-t. It ishere mentioned thatmustis a præterite form. Now the final letter of the rootmot, and the sign of the second singular of the strong præterite, are the same,-t. Now, as-tcannot be immediately added tot, the natural form of the second singularmót-tis impracticable. Hence, before the-tof the second person, the-tof the root is changed, so that, instead ofmáimáit-t,bigat-t,fáifalþ-t,láilot-t, &c., we havemáimáis-t,bigas-t,fáifals-t,láilos-t, &c., Mœso-Gothic.—See Deutsche Grammatik, 844.
The euphonic reason for the-s, inmust, is sufficient to show that it is in a different predicament fromdurst.
The provincial formmun, there or thereabouts equivalent in meaning tomust, has no etymological connexion with this last named word. It is a distinct word, in Scandinavianmonne.
Wist.—In its present form a regular præterite fromwiss=know. The difficulties of this word arise from the parallel formswit(as into wit), andwot=knew. The following are the forms of this peculiar word:—
In Mœso-Gothic, 1 sing. pres. ind.váit; 2. do.,váist; 1. pl.vitum; præterite 1. s.vissa; 2vissêss; 1. pl.vissêdum. From the formváistwe see that the second singular is formed after the manner ofmust; that is,váiststands instead ofváit-t. From the formvissêdumwe see that the præterite is not strong, but weak; therefore thatvissais euphonic forvista.
In Anglo-Saxon.—Wât,wâst,witon,wisteandwisse,wiston.—Here the double forms,wisteandwisse, verify the statement concerning the Mœso-Gothicvissa.
In Icelandic.—Veit,veizt,vitum,vissi. Danishved,vide,vidste. Observe the formvidste; since, in it, the-dof the root (in spelling, at least), is preserved. The-tof the Anglo-Saxonwisteis the-t, not of the root, but of the inflection.
In respect to the four forms in question,viz.,wit,wot,wiss,wist; the first seems to be the root; the second a strong præterite regularly formed, but used (likeοἶδαin Greek) with a present sense; the third a weak præterite, of which the-thas been ejected by a euphonic process, used also with apresent sense; the fourth is a second singular fromwissafter the manner ofwertfromwere, a second singular fromwitafter the manner ofmust, a secondary præterite fromwiss, or finally, the formwisse, anterior to the operation of the euphonic process that ejected the-t.
Do.—In the phrasethis will do=this will answer the purpose, the worddois wholly different from the worddo, meaningto act. In the first case it is equivalent to the Latinvalere; in the second to the Latinfacere. Of the first the Anglo-Saxon inflection isdeáh,dugon,dohte,dohtest, &c. Of the second it isdó,dóð,dyde, &c. I doubt whether the præterite did,as equivalent tovalebat=was good for, is correct. In the phraseit did for him=it finished him, either meaning may be allowed.
In the present Danish they writeduger, but sayduer: asduger et noget?=Is it worth anything?pronounceddooer deh note?This accounts for the ejection of theg. The Anglo-Saxon formdeahdoes the same.
In respect to the præterite ofdo=facio, difficulties present themselves.
Is the word weak?—This is the view that arises from the formdid. The participledonetraverses this view.
Is the word strong?—In favour of this notion we have the English participledone, and the præterite second singular in Old High Germantâti. Against it are the Old Saxondédos, and the Anglo-Saxondydest, as second singulars.
Is there a reduplication?—If this were the case, we might assume such a form asdôan,dáidô, for the Mœso-Gothic. This view, however, is traversed by the substantival formsdêds, Mœso-Gothic;tât, Old High German;dæd, Anglo-Saxon; which show that the second-dis part of the original word.
The true nature of the formdidhas yet to be exhibited.—See Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1041.
Mind—mind and do so and so.—In this sentence the wordmindis wholly different from the nounmind. The Anglo-Saxon forms aregeman,gemanst,gemunon, without the-d; this letter occurring only in the præterite tense (gemunde,gemundon), of which it is the sign.Mindis, then, a præterite form with a present sense; whilstminded(as inhe minded his business) is an instance of excess of inflection; in other words, it is a præterite formed from a præterite.
A præterite formed upon a præterite may also be called a secondary præterite; just as the wordtheirs, derived fromtheir(a case formed from a case), is called a secondary genitive.
In like manner the present formmindis not a genuine present, but a præterite with a present sense;its form being taken as the test. Presents of this sort may be called transformed præterites.
It is very evident that the præterites most likely to become present are those of the strong class. In the first place, the fact of their being præterite is less marked. The wordtellcarries with it fewer marks of its tense than the wordmoved. In the second place they can more conveniently give rise to secondary præterites. A weak præterite already ends in-dor-t. If this be used as a present, a second-dor-tmust be appended.
Hence it is that all the transposed præterites in the Gothic tongues were, before they took the present sense, not weak, but strong. The word in question,mind(from whenceminded), is only an apparent exception to this statement.
Now the wordsshall,can,owe(whenceaught),dare,may,man(of the Anglo-Saxongeman, the origin ofmind), are, (irrespective of their other peculiarities), for certain etymological reasons, looked upon as præterite forms with a present sense.
And the wordsshould,could,aught,dared(ordurst),must,wist,might,mind, are, for certain etymological reasons, looked upon as secondary præterites.
This fact alters our view of the formminded. Instead of being a secondary præterite, it is a tertiary one.Geman(the apparent present) being dealt with as a strong præterite with a present sense,mind(from the Anglo-Saxongemunde) is the secondary præterite, andminded(from the Englishmind) is a tertiary præterite. To analyse the word, thepræterite is first formed by the vowela, then by the addition of-d, and, thirdly, by the termination-ed;man,mind,minded.
The proof of this we collect from the second persons singular, Mœso-Gothic. The second singular præterite of the strong class is-t; of the weak class,-es; of the present, both weak and strong,-s. Now the second singular of the words in point isskal-t,kan-t,áih-t,dar-t?mag-t,man-t, respectively.—Deutsche Grammatik, i. 852.
Besides this, in Anglo-Saxon, the plural forms are those of the strong præterites. See Rask, p. 79.
Yode.—The obsolete præterite ofgo, now replaced bywent, the præterite ofwend. Regular, except that the initialghas becomey.
ON CONJUGATION.
§ 383. The current statement respecting verbs likesingandfall, &c., is that they are irregular. How far this is the case may be seen from a review of the twelve classes in Mœso-Gothic, where the change of the vowel is subject to fewer irregularities than elsewhere. In the first six conjugations the præterite is replaced by a perfect tense. Consequently, there is a reduplication. Of these the fifth and sixth superadd to the reduplication a change of the vowel.
Exhibited in a tabular form, the changes of the vowels in Mœso-Gothic are as follows:—
§ 384. Such is the arrangement of the strong verbs in Mœso-Gothic, with which the arrangement of the strong verbs in the other Gothic languages may or may not coincide.
For a full and perfect coincidence three things are necessary:—1. the coincidence of form; 2. the coincidence of distribution; 3. the coincidence of order.
1.Coincidence of form..—Compared with the Mœso-Gothicrinna,rann,runnum,runnans, the Old High German inflection coincides most rigidly;e.g.,rinnu,ran,runnumês,runnanê. The vowel is the same in the two languages, and it is similarly changed in each. It is very evident that this might be otherwise. The Mœso-Gothicimight have becomee, or theumight have becomeo. In this case, the formula for the two languages would not have been the same. Instead ofi, a, u, u(see the tabular arrangement), serving for the Old High German as well as the Mœso-Gothic, the formula would have been, for the Mœso-Gothic,i, a, u, u, and for the Old High Germane, a, u, u, ori, a, o, o. The forms in this latter case would have been equivalent, but not the same.
2.Coincidence of distribution.—A given number of words in the Mœso-Gothic form their præterites by changingiintoa; in other words, a given number of verbs in Mœso-Gothic are inflected likerinnaandrann. The same is the case with the Old High German. Now if these words are the same in the two languages, the Mœso-Gothic and the Old High German (as far as the agreement extends) coincide in the distribution of their verbs; that is, the same words are arranged in the same class, or (changing the phrase) are distributed alike.
3.Coincidence of order.—The conjugation to which the Mœso-Gothic wordsrinnaandrannbelong is the twelfth. The same is the case in Old High German. It might,however, have been the case that in Old High German the class corresponding with the twelfth in Mœso-Gothic was the first, second, third, or any other.
Now a coincidence of form, a coincidence of distribution, and a coincidence of order, in all the classes of all the Gothic languages, is more than can be expected. If such were the case, the tenses would be identical throughout.
Coincidence of form is infringed upon by the simple tendency of sounds to change.Hilpain Mœso-Gothic ishelpein Anglo-Saxon:hulpansin Mœso-Gothic isholfanêrin Old High German, andholpenin Anglo-Saxon. A change, however, of this sort is insufficient to affect the arrangement.Helpan, in Anglo-Saxon, is placed in the same class withspinnan; and all that can be said is, that the Mœso-Gothiciis, in Anglo-Saxon, represented not byiexclusively, but sometimes byiand sometimes byĕ.
Coincidence of distribution is of great etymological importance. A word may in one stage of a language take the form of one conjugation, and in another that of another. The wordclimbanis, in Anglo-Saxon, placed in the same conjugation withdrincan, &c. For this there was a reason;viz., the fact of theibeing short. For theibeing short there was a reason also. Thebpreceded the vowela, and consequently was sounded. This was the case whether the word was dividedclim-banorclimb-an.An, however, was no part of the original word, but only the sign of the infinitive mood. As such it became ejected. The letterbthen came at the end of the word; but as the combinationmb, followed by nothing was unstable,bwas soon lost in pronunciation. Nowbbeing lost, the vowel which was once short became lengthened, or rather it became the sound of the diphthongei; so that the word was no longer calledclĭmb, butclime. Now the words that follow the analogy ofspin,span,&c. (and consequently constitute the twelfth class), do so, not because the vowel isi, but because it is a shorti; and when theiis sounded like a diphthong, the præterite is formed differently. The Anglo-Saxon præterite ofclimbanwas soundedclŏmm, and rhymed tofrom; the English præterite (when strong) ofclimbis soundedclōmbe, rhyming toroam. The wordclimb, which was once classed withspinandsing, is now to be classed withariseandsmite; in other words, it is distributed differently.
Coincidence in the order of the classes is violated when a class which was (for instance) the third in one language becomes, in another language the fourth, &c. In Mœso-Gothic the class containing the wordssmeita,smáit,smitum,smitans, is the eighth. This is a natural place for it. In the class preceding it, the vowel is the same in both numbers. In the classes that follow it, the vowel is changed in the plural. The number of classes that in Mœso-Gothic change the vowel is five;viz., the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth. Of these the eighth is the first. The classes where the change in question takes place form a natural subdivision, of which the eighth class stands at the head. Now in Anglo-Saxon the vowel is not changed so much as in the Mœso-Gothic. In words likechoose,give, andsteal, the vowel remains unaltered in the plural. In Mœso-Gothic, however, these words are, respectively, of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh classes. It is not till we get to the eleventh that the Anglo-Saxon plurals take a fresh vowel. As the presence or absence of a change of vowel naturally regulates the order of the classes, the eighth class in Mœso-Gothic becomes the eleventh in Anglo-Saxon. If it were not so, the classes where a change took place in the plural would be separated from each other.
The later the stage of the language, the less complete the coincidence in the classes.
Of the present arrangement, the twelfth class coincides most throughout the Gothic languages.
In the wordclimb, a reason was given for its having changed from the twelfth class to the eleventh class. This, in the present state of our knowledge, cannot always be done.
These statements are made lest the reader should expect to find between the English and the Anglo-Saxon classification anything more than a partial coincidence. A detailed exhibition of the English conjugations would form a work ofitself. Moreover, the present classes of the strong verbs must, to a great degree, be considered as provisional.
Observe, that it is theclassesof the strong verbs that are provisional. With the great divisions into weak and strong, the case is far otherwise. The general assertions which will be made in p.333, respecting the strong conjugation, show most cogently that the division is a natural one.
§ 385. Preliminary, however, to making them, the reader's attention is directed to the following list of verbs. In the present English they all form the præterite in-dor-t; in Anglo-Saxon, they all form it by a change of the vowel. In other words they are weak verbs that were once strong.
§ 386. The first of the general statements made concerning strong verbs, with a view of proving that the order isnatural, shall be the one arising out of the preceding list of præterites.
I. Many strong verbs become weak; whilst no weak verb ever becomes strong.
II. All the strong verbs are of Saxon origin. None are classical.
III. The greater number of them are strong throughout the Gothic tongues.
IV. No new word is ever, upon its importation, inflected according to the strong conjugation. It is always weak. As early asA.D.1085, the French wordadouber=to dubb, was introduced into English. Its præterite wasdubbade.[56]
V. All derived words are inflected weak. The intransitive formsdrinkandlie, are strong; the transitive formsdrenchandlay, are weak.
The fourth statement will again be recurred to. The present object is to show that the division into strong and weak is natural.
§ 387.Obsolete forms.—Instead oflept,slept,mowed,snowed, &c., we find, in the provincial dialects and in the older writers, the strong formslep,step,mew,snew, &c. This is no more than what we expect. Here there are two forms, and each form is of a different conjugation.
§ 388.Double Forms.—Inlepandmewwe have two forms, of which one only is current. Inswollandswelled, inclombandclimbed, and inhungandhanged, we have two forms, of which both are current. These latter are true double forms. Of double forms there are two kinds.
1. Those likeswollandswelled; where there is the same tense, but a different conjugation.
2. Those likespokeandspake; where the tense is the same and the conjugation the same, but where the form is different.
The bearings of these double forms (which, however, are points of general rather than of English grammar) are as follows. Their number in a given language may be very great, and the grammarian of a given language may call them, not double forms of the same tense, but different tenses. Let the number of words likeswollandswelledbe multiplied by 1000. The chances are, that, in the present state of etymology, they would be called first præterites and second præterites. The bearing of this remark upon the so-called aorists and futures of the Greek language is evident. I think that a writer in the Cambridge Philological Museum[57]indicates the true nature of those tenses. They are the same tense in a different conjugation, and differ fromswollandswelledonly in the frequency of their occurrence.
Difference of form, and difference of conjugation, may each simulate a difference of tense.
DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY.
§ 389. In§ 361the distinction between irregularity and defectiveness was slightly foreshadowed. In pp.243,267, it was exhibited in its principles. In the present chapter the difference is more urgently insisted on.
The words that have hitherto served as illustrations are the personal pronounsIandme, and the adjectivesgood,better, andbest. See the sections referred to above.
The view of these words was as follows:viz., that none of them were irregular, but that they were all defective.Mewanted the nominative,Ithe oblique cases.Goodwas without a comparative,betterandbesthad no positive degree.
Nowmeandbettermay be said to make good the defectiveness ofIandgood; andIandgoodmay be said to replace the forms wanting inmeandbetter. This gives us the principle of compensation. To introduce a new term,Iandme,goodandbetter, may be said to be complementary to each other.
What applies to nouns applies to verbs also.Goandwentare not irregularities.Gois (at least in the present stage of our language) defective in the past tense.Went(at least in its current sense) is without a present. The two words, however, compensate their mutual deficiencies, and are to each other complementary.
The distinction between defectiveness and irregularity, is the first instrument of criticism for coming to true views concerning the proportion of the regular and irregular verbs.
The second instrument of criticism in determining the irregular verbs, is the meaning that we attach to terms.
It is very evident that it is in the power of the grammarian to raise the number of etymological irregularities to any amount, by narrowing the definition of the word irregular; in other words, by framing an exclusive rule. The current rule of the common grammarians is that the præterite is formed by the addition of-t, or-d, or-ed. Now this position is sufficiently exclusive; since it proscribes not only the whole class of strong verbs, but also words likebentandsent, where-texists, but where it does not exist asan addition. The regular forms, it may be said, should bebendedandsended.
Exclusive, however, as the rule in question is, it is plain that it might be made more so. The regular forms might, by thefiatof a rule, be restricted to those in-d. In this case words likeweptandburntwould be added to the already numerous list of irregulars.
Finally, a further limitation might be made, by laying down as a rule that no word was regular, unless it ended in-ed.
Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and, consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities. This is the last art that the philosophic grammarian is ambitious of acquiring. True etymology reduces irregularity by making the rules of grammar, not exclusive, but general. Thequantumof irregularity is in the inverse proportion to the generality of our rules. In language itself there is no irregularity. The word itself is only another name for our ignorance of the processes that change words; and, as irregularity is in the direct proportion to the exclusiveness of our rules, the exclusiveness of our rules is in the direct proportion to our ignorance of etymological processes.
The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards (but not to) the definition of the word irregular.
I.Vital and obsolete processes.—The wordmovedis formed frommove, by the addition of-d. The addition of-dis the process by which the present form is rendered præterite. The wordfellis formed fromfall, by changingaintoe. The change of vowel is the process by which the present form isrendered præterite. Of the two processes the result is the same. In what respect do they differ?
For the sake of illustration, let a new word be introduced into the language. Let a præterite tense of it be formed. This præterite would be formed, not by changing the vowel, but by adding-d. No new verb ever takes a strong præterite. The like takes place with nouns. No new substantive would form its plural, likeoxenorgeese, by adding-en, or by changing the vowel. It would rather, likefathersandhorses, add the lene sibilant.
Now, the processes that changefall,ox, andgooseintofell,oxen, andgeese, inasmuch as they cease to operate on the language in its present stage, are obsolete processes; whilst those that changemoveintomoved, andhorseintohorses, operating on the language in its present stage, are vital processes.
A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words whose forms could not be accounted for by the vital processes. Such a definition would, in the present English, make words likebent,sought, &c. (the euphonic processes being allowed for), regular, and all the strong verbs irregular.
The very fact of so natural a class as that of the strong verbs being reduced to the condition of irregulars, invalidates such a definition as this.
II.Processes of necessity as opposed to processes of habit.—The combinations-pd-,-fd-,-kd-,-sd-, and some others, are unpronounceable. Hence words likestep,quaff,back,kiss, &c., take after them the sound of-t:stept,quafft, &c. (thesoundbeing represented), being their præterites, instead ofstepd,quaffd. Here the change from-d(the natural termination) to-tis a matter (or process) of necessity. It is not so with words likeweepandwept, &c. Here the change of vowel is not necessary.Weeptmight have been said if the habit of the language had permitted.
A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words whose natural form was modified by any euphonic process whatever. In this casestept(modified by aprocess of necessity), andwept(modified by a process of habit), would be equally irregular.
A less limited definition might account words regular as long as the process by which they are deflected from their natural form was a process of necessity. Those, however, which were modified by a process of habit it would class with the irregulars.
Definitions thus limited arise from ignorance of euphonic processes, or rather from an ignorance of the generality of their operation.
III.Ordinary processes as opposed to extraordinary processes.—The whole scheme of language is analogical. A new word introduced into a language takes the forms of its cases or tenses, &c., from the forms of the cases or tenses, &c., of the old words. The analogy is extended. Now few forms (if any) are so unique as not to have some others corresponding with them; and few processes of change are so unique as not to affect more words than one. The formsweptandsleptcorrespond with each other. They are brought about by the same process;viz.by the shortening of the vowel inweepandsleep. The analogy ofweepis extended tosleep, andvice versâ. Changing our expression, a common influence affects both words. The alteration itself is an ultimate fact. The extent of its influence is an instrument of classification. When processes affect a considerable number of words, they may be called ordinary processes; as opposed to extraordinary processes, which affect one or few words.
When a word stands by itself, with no other corresponding to it, we confess our ignorance, and say that it is affected by an extraordinary process, by a process peculiar to itself, or by a process to which we know nothing similar.
A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words affected by extraordinary processes; the rest being considered regular.
IV.Positive processes as opposed to ambiguous processes.—The wordsweptandsleptare similarly affected. Each is changed fromweepandsleeprespectively; and we know thatthe process which affects the one is the process that affects the other also. Here there is a positive process.
Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the wordworseis explained in p.267, and the reader is referred to the section. There the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the true one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the process is ambiguous.
A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words affected by ambiguous processes.
V.Normal processes as opposed to processes of confusion.—Let a certain word come under class A. Let all words under class A be similarly affected. Let a given word come under class A. This word will be affected even as the rest of class A is affected. The process affecting, and the change resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical.
Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under class A,appearto do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false one. The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a process of confusion.
Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words likesongstress,theirs,minded, where the wordssongstr-,their-, andmind-, are dealt with as roots, which they are not.
Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion—each, or all of these are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The practice of etymologists will determine what definition is most convenient.
With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous processes we are unable to make a choice. With processes of confusion we see the analogy, but, at the same time, see that it is a false one.
§ 390.Could.—With all persons who pronounce thelthis word is truly irregular. The Anglo-Saxon form iscuðe. The-lis inserted by a process of confusion.